Psychopaths

[Schneibster]

Because they lie all the time.

That's how they get the stupids to vote for them.

it says more about you than the group you insult

Let's start with "you can't trust atheists," "Saddam has WMD in Iraq" and "CDOs are no problem."

[Schneibster]

To suggest that anyone lies 'all the time' is such a monumentally stupid assertion that anyone could quickly see it for what it is - robot-like adherence to dogma rather than thought.

And continue with "Obama is a Muslim," "austerity fixes unemployment," and "butttheresnoglobalwarming."

I can do this all night.

[Schneibster]

How about "regulations hurt business," "government is evil," and "both parties are lying?"

Shall I continue?

[Schneibster]

This is just off the top of my head, you understand. I'm not looking shit up, these are just ones I happen to remember in the pseudo-random order I happen to think of them.

[Coito ergo sum]

conservatroid

Is this your idea of respectful discourse?

Why not just call people 'conservatards', or 'liber-iggers'? (I'll give you a hint - it's because it says more about you than the group you insult)

He does call them conservatards.

[Azathoth]

[Cunt]

Good job making my point, Schneibster. Thanks for making it so easy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because they lie all the time.

That's how they get the stupids to vote for them.

Politicians lie?

[Coito ergo sum]

How about "regulations hurt business," "government is evil," and "both parties are lying?"

Shall I continue?

How about "regulations are good for business," "government is good," and "only one party is lying?"

[Coito ergo sum]

This is just off the top of my head, you understand.

Understand? It's painfully obvious.

[Schneibster]

Because they lie all the time.

That's how they get the stupids to vote for them.

Politicians lie?

Not all of them and not all the time.

But how about "We're not trying to dynamite the economy to lynch the scary black man in the White House?"

[Schneibster]

How about "regulations hurt business," "government is evil," and "both parties are lying?"

Shall I continue?

How about "regulations are good for business," "government is good," and "only one party is lying?"

OK:

"regulations are good for business" Killing customers is bad for business, can we agree on that? And regulations prevent businesses from making dangerous products. With me so far?
"government is good" Whatcha gonna do about it when the Sudanese kidnap the next US citizens without a government?
This is easy.
"only one party is lying" So far you're batting zero. You'll need to present some credible evidence to support your position.

[Schneibster]

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich said he's not a lobbyist. But it looks like he's been introducing clients to Republican politicians.

Newt Gingrich is adamant that he is not a lobbyist, but rather a visionary who traffics in ideas, not influence. But in the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, he has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials.

Source.

In other words, he said "IANAL."

[Schneibster]

Then there's "we didn't kill the supercommittee."

What we’re supposed to hear, and hear, and hear, is that Democrats didn’t care as much about reducing the deficit as the GOP did, that they were obsessed with hiking taxes, and that they wanted the whole shebang to fail to prove a point. The reason Republicans keep saying this, as Jonathan Chait explains, is that it looks to most people like they triggered the supercollapse because they wouldn’t deal on taxes. Sen. Tom Coburn’s mega-compromise, the nucleus of a “Gang of Six” deal that would raise some taxes while cutting spending, got nowhere. The “grand bargain” that Speaker John Boehner flirted with in the summer, the one that could have averted the debt crisis, couldn’t pass a Republican Congress. A Gallup poll about the failure had voters blaming the GOP by a 3-to-2 margin (all voters) or a 2-to-1 margin (independents).

Source.

The majority doesn't believe it. Gee, I wonder why that is?

[Schneibster]

Meanwhile on topic:

The study, published in the most recent Journal of Neuroscience, builds on earlier work by Newman and Koenigs that showed that psychopaths' decision-making mirrors that of patients with known damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). This bolsters evidence that problems in that part of the brain are connected to the disorder.

"The decision-making study showed indirectly what this study shows directly -- that there is a specific brain abnormality associated with criminal psychopathy," Koenigs adds.

Source

Which is what I said. Now, does anyone have any comments on this? Is there anyone left here with any integrity at all, or are apologies immaterial to you all?

Are you ever embarrassed? I would be if I were you.